Rumor has it that the NSA has more than a few people capable of merging any changes they want back into their private source tree.
And highly secure operating systems tend to not suffer from feature creep. So I doubt if USB support and other goodies are high on the priority list for a highly secured Linux version that the NSA is interested in maintaining.
I switched back. I bought Windows 98 over a year after it was released. I ran a pure-linux desktop machine at home for over a year before that.
I am having a lot more fun generating music and such on a Windows machine. Not pokeing around in makefiles trying to get sound hardware to work, not fumbling around in Python GUIs (a la Red Hat) wondering why my sound card isn't found.
But I have several fine Linux machines still, and a pile of older 486 boxes running a mix of BSD os'es, just to play around with networking.
I'd never seriously consider using Linux as my primary deskto OS again. What a mess.
Correction: For years, you could plug any of a rather limited number of Apple-approved hardware upgrades into a Mac and have it work right away.
And if a hardware manufacturer tried to put hardware out onto the market without first kissing the Apple ring, they found themselves in court defending against a lawsuit.
I've never heard cooperative multitasking, the lack of memory protection, and "what's symmetric multiprocessing?" referred to as a "theme" before. But I guess one could call it an Apple theme.
I'm confused. You're talking about NextStep, right? So you have the companies and product name all mixed up, eh? The Next OS ran on Intel, and not on Power PC. So when Apple bought Next, they had to throw away the Intel part of it and warp it into working on PPC. It's probably taken them several revs to get it running on PPC, but it's on the way now. You can blame Apple for the uglier parts of the code, though.
Actually, Microsoft plowed the ground that makes it possible for all sorts of other interests to copy their look-n-feel. When they defeated Apple's selfish look-n-feel lawsuit, they set a precedent. The end result is that things like FVWM95 can be made available with no limits.
Not that Microsoft cares when somebody copys their look-n-feel. Imitation is a form of flattery.
Well, then the manufacturers better be ready for what I'll be demanding. It's time for me to order that StrongArm ATX motherboard from Chalice, and soon afterward it will be time to demand drivers for Linux StrongARM and NetBSD StrongARM. Because I never know which OS I might have loaded when I get that urge to play a DVD movie.
Maybe it's about X. And I don't mean OS X, although in a way I do.
Apple is not enthusiastic about there being an X Window System running on the new Macs with OS X. Needless to say they have their own GUI agenda.
If there's no Metrowerks port for Linux, there's no development of it as a tool to develop X applications. That means there won't be a whole body of code that can easily be ported over to OS X.
This is coming out sounding like a conspiracy theory kind of thing, but I can see where Apple would encourage Metrowerks to not put resources into anything that has to do with the X Window System.
I hope I'm not way off base in making this assertion.
That's old hat. There are a half dozen optional "office assistants" in the new release (Office 2000.) Nobody uses clippit anymore, it's just what people who are well behind the times bring up when they want to complain about Microsoft.
I prefer the "Mother Earth" Office assistant. I like how it blows a volcano (a-la Sim Earth) when you do something it thinks is wrong.
Then again, the other side of my brain likes Slackware, because Red Hat, KDE, and all the other messes ruin the clean design of Linux with FVWM2.
"Window manager configuration files for the fvwm2 window manager are stored in which directory?"
Sir! On a well administered system with users who actually want their apps in the menu for FVWM2,.fvwm2rc is stored in ~/. It is copied there, of course, from/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fvwm2/system.fvwm2rc. Sir!
Of course, I am sure there are people here who will say that anything associated with fvwm is stored in/dev/null.
A better question would be where XF86Config gets stowed. On partial birth abortions like Red Hat it isn't stored where it belongs in/etc.
Indeed. I find it ludicrous that they even have RPM's for source packages. What was wrong with the tar.gz distribution media. Granted, a little hand holding in the form of binary RPM's might be tolerable for Linux-should-be-like-Windows people, but source code is source code is source code. Why does it need a proprietary (yes, it is proprietary, even if openly documented) packaging scheme?
Actually, patents are more like a big exposition hall where inventions are displayed. Signs out front say "hey, check out this new idea we have come up with. we're sharing our ideas so you don't waste your time trying to reinvent them yourselfs. We'd like to talk to you if you're interested in licensing the design."
It's a bit more progressive than building the machine, then filling all cavities with black epoxy and welding the case shut. (and privately executing the engineer who came up with it)
Re:Here's a question I have
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
And the reason most journalists are liberal is that Journalism school is where you enroll when you flunk out of Calculus.
Re:why it should be stopped...
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft's $2000 license to run IIS as an NT validated service is an intranet thing. You can still run IIS as an open web server without paying that fee. Or of course you are also free to run a patchy server (yes, that's where it got it's name).
Congratulations. You just posted a whole big wad of what we know of in the industry as "fear, uncertainty, and doubt." That's what it's called when you amplify a lot of rumors and theories to try to make it seem like people should drop a supplier.
Yes, the defeat of the encryption has nothing to do with verbatim copying. The data on the DVD disk can be copied verbatim without needing to be decrypted. What the DVD people are concerned about is decryption for conversion to different formats.
And they do have the right to control what formats the content they produce is distributed on. "Fair use" is for quoting and limited reproduction, not redistribution of the entire body of material.
You can say they don't, you can say "information wants to be free." We welcome you to share the entire contents of your hard drive to the net. Don't claim we don't have that right out of the other corner of your mouth.
I am running Windows NT Workstation 4.0 on one of my machines on my home network. I have Interix also installed on the machine. Interix is a replacement for the crippled POSIX API that ships by default on NT.
I have the inetd services provided with Interix installed. This means that I can telnet into the NT box to a csh prompt.
I have a number of user accounts established on the machine. I can use telnet to log in with the various accounts, and simultaneously they can all be logged in and doing work. In fact, I can open 'talk' sessions (the talk command is included in the Interix bundle) between different users in terminal windows. Each logged in user can also open X applications (to be displayed remotely, or on the NT box itself using Exceed) (Interix bundles a complete release of X including a fully licensed copy of Motif with the Interix package.)
So I guess I can second your comment that NT is multi-user. In exactly the same ways as Unix is multi-user, if configured as such.
Would this mean that the BIOS on the hardware would be Linux-only? How would such an innovation jive with a spirit of "open" architectures? What happens if I invest in VA Linux box(en) and decide a few months down the road that I'd rather run NetBSD or (oh the horrors!) Windows 2000 on it(them)?
With the increased bandwidth, and ultimately the end of "broadcasting" (because people will choose what they want to watch by picking from a menu and enjoying the video stream they select when they want to select it) comes the death of the rationale for "timeshifting."
If you can que up the program when you want, starting at exactly when you want, what is your rationale for needing to "time shift" the program?
Ooops, I guess maybe it wasn't all just about timeshifting after all.
The next time there's a storm in my area, my 19" black and white Zenith portable will blank out. I'll have to reach over to my 3" Active Matrix LCD television set ("the tee vee that's built into it's remote control") and watch it instead.
Oh, and I jumped vigorously into the 70's when I bought the 19" set (about a year ago at a thrift store for $5) as it's date of manufacture is 1978.
Cool. That's important, as my 19" black and white Zenith portable is a workhorse that I plan on enjoying for years in the future. It's even solid state!
Speaking as someone who has a 19" black and white portable as my (nearly) only television set, I find your comment humorous. I had the set on most of the day yesterday and watched the latest Simpson's episode as well as other programming (Xena got pregnant, etc.).
My other television set is a 3" active matrix color LCD portable set.
I don't hold much stock in that televsion stuff. The cabinet the tv sits on is in the way of the bookshelf in my living room (one of four) that has the reference books on it. It's quite an annoyance. I get tired of TV and consign it to storage in the garage fairly often.
I'm not a luddite, though. My computer has a nice Sony 19" monitor (and the second best has an NEC 17" monitor). I just think most programming sucks. The new show they played last night ("some name or other in the middle" I think it was called) seemed like a new low in quality.
Shoot your television.
Open a book and render some REALLY good 3-D animation, in wetware.
Slashdot Mirror
Gibson isn't the "father of cyberpunk." He's the pimp of John Brunner's "Shockwave Rider."
But he cops a fine attitude in glossy magazines.
Rumor has it that the NSA has more than a few people capable of merging any changes they want back into their private source tree.
And highly secure operating systems tend to not suffer from feature creep. So I doubt if USB support and other goodies are high on the priority list for a highly secured Linux version that the NSA is interested in maintaining.
You'll get back to us when you do, right, A. C. ??
I switched back. I bought Windows 98 over a year after it was released. I ran a pure-linux desktop machine at home for over a year before that.
I am having a lot more fun generating music and such on a Windows machine. Not pokeing around in makefiles trying to get sound hardware to work, not fumbling around in Python GUIs (a la Red Hat) wondering why my sound card isn't found.
But I have several fine Linux machines still, and a pile of older 486 boxes running a mix of BSD os'es, just to play around with networking.
I'd never seriously consider using Linux as my primary deskto OS again. What a mess.
Correction: For years, you could plug any of a rather limited number of Apple-approved hardware upgrades into a Mac and have it work right away.
And if a hardware manufacturer tried to put hardware out onto the market without first kissing the Apple ring, they found themselves in court defending against a lawsuit.
Apple has always been big on Plug and Prey.
I've never heard cooperative multitasking, the lack of memory protection, and "what's symmetric multiprocessing?" referred to as a "theme" before. But I guess one could call it an Apple theme.
I'm confused. You're talking about NextStep, right? So you have the companies and product name all mixed up, eh? The Next OS ran on Intel, and not on Power PC. So when Apple bought Next, they had to throw away the Intel part of it and warp it into working on PPC. It's probably taken them several revs to get it running on PPC, but it's on the way now. You can blame Apple for the uglier parts of the code, though.
Actually, Microsoft plowed the ground that makes it possible for all sorts of other interests to copy their look-n-feel. When they defeated Apple's selfish look-n-feel lawsuit, they set a precedent. The end result is that things like FVWM95 can be made available with no limits.
Not that Microsoft cares when somebody copys their look-n-feel. Imitation is a form of flattery.
Well, then the manufacturers better be ready for what I'll be demanding. It's time for me to order that StrongArm ATX motherboard from Chalice, and soon afterward it will be time to demand drivers for Linux StrongARM and NetBSD StrongARM. Because I never know which OS I might have loaded when I get that urge to play a DVD movie.
Maybe it's about X. And I don't mean OS X, although in a way I do.
Apple is not enthusiastic about there being an X Window System running on the new Macs with OS X. Needless to say they have their own GUI agenda.
If there's no Metrowerks port for Linux, there's no development of it as a tool to develop X applications. That means there won't be a whole body of code that can easily be ported over to OS X.
This is coming out sounding like a conspiracy theory kind of thing, but I can see where Apple would encourage Metrowerks to not put resources into anything that has to do with the X Window System.
I hope I'm not way off base in making this assertion.
That's old hat. There are a half dozen optional "office assistants" in the new release (Office 2000.) Nobody uses clippit anymore, it's just what people who are well behind the times bring up when they want to complain about Microsoft.
I prefer the "Mother Earth" Office assistant. I like how it blows a volcano (a-la Sim Earth) when you do something it thinks is wrong.
Then again, the other side of my brain likes Slackware, because Red Hat, KDE, and all the other messes ruin the clean design of Linux with FVWM2.
"Window manager configuration files for the fvwm2 window manager are stored in which directory?"
.fvwm2rc is stored in ~/. It is copied there, of course, from /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fvwm2/system.fvwm2rc. Sir!
/dev/null.
/etc.
Sir! On a well administered system with users who actually want their apps in the menu for FVWM2,
Of course, I am sure there are people here who will say that anything associated with fvwm is stored in
A better question would be where XF86Config gets stowed. On partial birth abortions like Red Hat it isn't stored where it belongs in
Indeed. I find it ludicrous that they even have RPM's for source packages. What was wrong with the tar.gz distribution media. Granted, a little hand holding in the form of binary RPM's might be tolerable for Linux-should-be-like-Windows people, but source code is source code is source code. Why does it need a proprietary (yes, it is proprietary, even if openly documented) packaging scheme?
Actually, patents are more like a big exposition hall where inventions are displayed. Signs out front say "hey, check out this new idea we have come up with. we're sharing our ideas so you don't waste your time trying to reinvent them yourselfs. We'd like to talk to you if you're interested in licensing the design."
It's a bit more progressive than building the machine, then filling all cavities with black epoxy and welding the case shut. (and privately executing the engineer who came up with it)
And the reason most journalists are liberal is that Journalism school is where you enroll when you flunk out of Calculus.
Microsoft's $2000 license to run IIS as an NT validated service is an intranet thing. You can still run IIS as an open web server without paying that fee. Or of course you are also free to run a patchy server (yes, that's where it got it's name).
Congratulations. You just posted a whole big wad of what we know of in the industry as "fear, uncertainty, and doubt." That's what it's called when you amplify a lot of rumors and theories to try to make it seem like people should drop a supplier.
Yes. FUD is written all over the above comment.
Yes, the defeat of the encryption has nothing to do with verbatim copying. The data on the DVD disk can be copied verbatim without needing to be decrypted. What the DVD people are concerned about is decryption for conversion to different formats.
And they do have the right to control what formats the content they produce is distributed on. "Fair use" is for quoting and limited reproduction, not redistribution of the entire body of material.
You can say they don't, you can say "information wants to be free." We welcome you to share the entire contents of your hard drive to the net. Don't claim we don't have that right out of the other corner of your mouth.
I am running Windows NT Workstation 4.0 on one of my machines on my home network. I have Interix also installed on the machine. Interix is a replacement for the crippled POSIX API that ships by default on NT.
I have the inetd services provided with Interix installed. This means that I can telnet into the NT box to a csh prompt.
I have a number of user accounts established on the machine. I can use telnet to log in with the various accounts, and simultaneously they can all be logged in and doing work. In fact, I can open 'talk' sessions (the talk command is included in the Interix bundle) between different users in terminal windows. Each logged in user can also open X applications (to be displayed remotely, or on the NT box itself using Exceed) (Interix bundles a complete release of X including a fully licensed copy of Motif with the Interix package.)
So I guess I can second your comment that NT is multi-user. In exactly the same ways as Unix is multi-user, if configured as such.
Would this mean that the BIOS on the hardware would be Linux-only? How would such an innovation jive with a spirit of "open" architectures? What happens if I invest in VA Linux box(en) and decide a few months down the road that I'd rather run NetBSD or (oh the horrors!) Windows 2000 on it(them)?
Ummm, shouldn't that translate into:
"We're using the Linux bandwagon as our only means of transportation?"
With the increased bandwidth, and ultimately the end of "broadcasting" (because people will choose what they want to watch by picking from a menu and enjoying the video stream they select when they want to select it) comes the death of the rationale for "timeshifting."
If you can que up the program when you want, starting at exactly when you want, what is your rationale for needing to "time shift" the program?
Ooops, I guess maybe it wasn't all just about timeshifting after all.
Of course, I can chime in here:
The next time there's a storm in my area, my 19" black and white Zenith portable will blank out. I'll have to reach over to my 3" Active Matrix LCD television set ("the tee vee that's built into it's remote control") and watch it instead.
Oh, and I jumped vigorously into the 70's when I bought the 19" set (about a year ago at a thrift store for $5) as it's date of manufacture is 1978.
Cool. That's important, as my 19" black and white Zenith portable is a workhorse that I plan on enjoying for years in the future. It's even solid state!
Speaking as someone who has a 19" black and white portable as my (nearly) only television set, I find your comment humorous. I had the set on most of the day yesterday and watched the latest Simpson's episode as well as other programming (Xena got pregnant, etc.).
My other television set is a 3" active matrix color LCD portable set.
I don't hold much stock in that televsion stuff. The cabinet the tv sits on is in the way of the bookshelf in my living room (one of four) that has the reference books on it. It's quite an annoyance. I get tired of TV and consign it to storage in the garage fairly often.
I'm not a luddite, though. My computer has a nice Sony 19" monitor (and the second best has an NEC 17" monitor). I just think most programming sucks. The new show they played last night ("some name or other in the middle" I think it was called) seemed like a new low in quality.
Shoot your television.
Open a book and render some REALLY good 3-D animation, in wetware.